PRESIDENT OBAMA IS STANDING UP TO IRAN WITH THE TOUGHEST SANCTIONS YET, KEEPING ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE, AND DEFENDING OF OUR ALLIES, WHILE MITT ROMNEY WOULD ASK HIS LAWYERS WHAT TO DO

In 2007, Romney said he would defer to attorneys on whether he could launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, a position the Wall Street Journal called a “dangerous” first instinct of a Commander In Chief. President Obama, on the other hand, has maintained a position of strength in his dealing with threats from Iran, making it clear that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, signing into law the toughest sanctions that are having a real effect on the country, and continuing America’s strong support of Israel.

REALITY: ROMNEY PREVIOUSLY SAID HE WOULD DEFER TO LAWYERS ON WHETHER HE WOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST IRAN

Romney Said He Would Talk To His Lawyers Before Deciding Whether To Use Military Force Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities. Asked whether congressional authorization would be necessary to launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Romney declined to answer definitively, instead deferring to lawyers’ opinions. “You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what’s in the best interest of the United States,” Romney told moderator Chris Matthews. On whether President Bush needed authorization to invade Iraq, Romney again deferred to legal experts, saying, “You know, we’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn’t need to do.” [CNBC/WSJ GOP Debate, 10/9/07]

Romney Suggested You Sit Down With Your Attorneys Before You Deal With Iran. “Romney was the first to answer a question about whether a president would need authorization from Congress to take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. ‘You sit down with your attorneys’ for advice, he said, but ‘the president of the United States has to do what’s in the best interest of the United States.” [USA Today, 10/10/07]

WSJ Editorial: “Deferring To Lawyers To Tell A President When He Can And Cannot Use Force To Defend The Country Is Not A Proper Understanding Of The Executive Power Under The Constitution, And It Is Dangerous If It Is The First Instinct Of A Commander In Chief.” The Wall Street Journal editorial page wrote, “Egad. Call in the attorneys? Perhaps it is Mr. Romney’s experience in business that taught him to want lawyers at his elbow, given that no CEO can survive without them these days. Or perhaps it is our hyper-legalized politics, with Mr. Bush accused daily of "breaking the law" over mere policy disagreements. But deferring to lawyers to tell a President when he can and cannot use force to defend the country is not the proper understanding of executive power under the Constitution, and it is dangerous if it is the first instinct of a Commander in Chief. Mr. Romney should have said that a President’s first duty is to do whatever it takes to protect the United States, and that he’d have the Constitutional authority to use military force to do so -- as Presidents from Washington to Teddy Roosevelt to Reagan have done -- but that of course he would want to consult with Congress and win its support as time and circumstances allowed. Mr. Romney doesn’t need a lawyer; he needs to reread the Federalist Papers.” [Editorial, Wall Street Journal, 10/11/07]

Admiral Robert J. Natter Criticized Romney Saying “Lawyers Should Not Debate While Our National Security Is On The Line.” Admiral Robert J. Natter said of Romney’s remark that he would consult attorney’s before using military action against Iran, "Going to war is the most serious decision a president can make. Lawyers should not debate while our national security is on the line. In these momentous decisions, we need leadership, not litigation.” [MSNBC, Firstread, 10/10/07]

REALITY: WHILE ROMNEY CALLS FOR TOUGHER SANCTIONS, HIS CHARITABLE HAS FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN COMPANIES THAT DO BUSINESS WITH IRAN

Romney’s Pledge To Sell Off Interests That Conflict With His GOP Stances Did Not Extend To Some Investments In A Family Charity. According to the Associated Press, “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's personal wealth — up to $250 million — survived the nation's economic crisis, according to figures released Friday. But his pledge to sell off interests that conflict with his GOP stances did not extend to some investments in a family charity”. [Associated Press, 8/12/11]

Romney’s Charity, In 2007 And 2008, Purchased And Sold Investment Shares In “More Than A Dozen Other Foreign And Domestic Companies That Have Conducted Dealings With Iran, China Or Stem Cell Research.” According to the Associated Press, “In 2007 and 2008, the charity also purchased and sold hundreds of other investment shares - worth thousands of dollars - in more than a dozen other foreign and domestic companies that have conducted dealings with Iran, China or stem cell research. The companies included China-based businesses Hang Lung, Telefonica and China Mobile Limited; medical research companies such as Merck, Roche Holdings and Fisher Scientific; and companies that dealt with Iran, among them Schlumberger, Gazprom and Total.” [Associated Press, 8/12/11]

2009: Romney’s Charity Bought Shares In Petroleo Brasiliero, Which “Invested $100 Million To Develop Iranian Oil And Natural Gas Reserves.” According to the Associated Press, “Yet as late as the 2009 period, tax filings show, Romney's charity bought shares worth $5,734 in Petroleo Brasiliero SA, also known as Petrobras, a Brazilian state-owned energy company that reportedly invested $100 million to develop Iranian oil and natural gas reserves in the Caspian Sea. The charity later sold the shares that year at a loss.” [Associated Press, 8/12/11]

REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS MADE IT CLEAR HE WILL NOT ALLOW A NUCLEAR IRAN

President Obama has repeatedly affirmed that it would be unacceptable for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. [MSNBC, 6/9/10]

REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA PASSED THE MOST SEVERE SANCTIONS IRAN HAS EVER FACED

With President Obama’s leadership, the United States gained the support of Russia, China and other nations to pass United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, creating the most comprehensive and biting international sanctions regime the Iranian government has ever faced. [UN News Centre, 6/9/10]

President Obama worked with Congress to pass the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, which strengthens existing US sanctions and makes it harder for the Iranian government to buy refined petroleum and other goods it needs to modernize its oil and gas sector. [Associated Press, 6/24/10]

Close to $60 billion in energy-related projects in Iran have already been put on hold or discontinued as of the end of 2010. [Bloomberg, 12/1/10]

President Ahmadinejad Has Been Forced To Admit The Serious Impact Of Sanctions Placed On Government By The Obama Administration. [Washington Post, 11/1/11]

The Iranian Economy Now Faces Its Bleakest Prospects In Two Decades With An Almost Unanimous Forecast Of Low Growth, High Inflation, And Continued Double-Digit Unemployment. [Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, 03/18/10]

REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA STRONGLY CONDEMNED THE IRANIAN REGIME’S ATTACKS ON ITS CITIZENS

President Obama Forcefully Spoke Out In Support Of The Iran People’s Efforts To Make Their Voices Heard And “Strongly Condemned” The “Unjust Actions” Of The Iranian Government. [NYT, 06/23/09]

REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA STOOD BY ISRAEL IN THE FACE OF THE IRANIAN THREAT

Prime Minister Netanyahu praised President Obama for his efforts to prevent Iranian nuclearization and for defending Israel's right to protect itself against Iranian proxies. "President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The president successfully led the Security Council at the UN to adopt sanctions against Iran." [Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s Address to Congress, 5/24/11]

The Obama administration has reinstituted sanctions against Iran-allied Syria and strongly condemned Syria’s transfer of Scud missiles and other arms to Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon. [New York Times, 5/19/11; The Telegraph, 4/20/10]

President Obama Accelerated The Deployment Of Ships And Antimissile Systems To The Persian Gulf To Defend Against Possible Iranian Missile Strikes. [NYT, 1/30/10]

In tonight’s Iowa Debate Mitt Romney casually offered a $10,000 bet, after calling a $1,500 tax break for the middle class a band-aid. Mitt Romney may not know what $10,000 means to middle class families, but here’s what the average American family can buy with $10,000:

While both Romney and Gingrich claim they’d support and defend Israel, they’ve both advocated for starting foreign aid at zero, including Israel. And a fundraiser for Romney served as a lobbyist for the Arab Bank, which was investigated by the Treasury Department for funneling money to Palestinian terrorists. Their records stand in stark contrast to President Obama, who has constantly demonstrated his unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security and well-being, strengthening the unbreakable bond between our two nations. In both word and deed, the President has signaled to the world that the US‐Israel relationship is stronger than ever.

On immigration, Mitt Romney’s position is the most far-right of the Republican field. Tonight, he once again highlighted his extreme plan and said, “My own view is, those 11 million should register the fact they're here in the country. They should give some transition period of time, allow them settle their affairs and then return home and get in line at the back of the line with everybody else that wants to come here.” With plans like this, it’s clear that Romney is continuing his race to the right and taking his place as one of the most extreme presidential candidates in American history on immigration.

First, Romney said his health care plan in Massachusetts would be a model for the nation. Then, he flip flopped and said it shouldn’t. In reality, the national health reform law that Romney has vowed to repeal was based on Romney’s plan in Massachusetts.

Both Romney and Gingrich claim their policies are good for the American middle class. But the reality is the economic plans they’ve embraced slash taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Americans and do nearly nothing for the middle class.

In 2007, Gingrich Praised The Freddie Mac Business Model And Warned Against Changing It, In Direct Contrast With His Current Assertion That He Warned The Mortgage Company Of Its “Insane” Business Practices.

First, Romney was against extending the payroll tax cut because it was a “temporary little Band-Aid.” Then, he said he’d “like to see the payroll tax cut extended” because it helps American families. And tonight, he again called the payroll tax cut a “little Band-Aid.” His flip-flopping on the payroll tax cut - and his economic plan - shows middle-class Americans whose side he’s really on. And if $1500 for the average American family is a “little Band-Aid,” then why does his plan only give them $54?

Tonight, Mitt Romney said that we need to have trade policies that make sense for America, not just for the people with whom we trade. This President has not done that. And China, who has been cheating, has to be cracked down on.

Romney can’t make up his mind on what his strategy would be in Afghanistan. First, he wouldn’t say what he’d do. Then in January, he said it was his “desire” not to leave Afghanistan. Five months later, he claimed he wanted the troops to come home as soon as possible.

Romney and the rest of the Republican field support zeroing out foreign aid, even with our closest allies – including Israel. But in true Romney fashion, after he supported zeroing out aid to Israel, he flip flopped and said he wanted to increase it instead. And at tonight’s debate, he said his first foreign trip as president would be to Israel to demonstrate our strong relationship.

President Obama has launched a series of trailblazing initiatives to protect the health and safety of the American people, reduce our dependence on imported oil and promote responsible use of domestic energy and new, clean energy technologies

The latest GOP debate proved that none of the Republican candidates have a plan to create jobs. But we did hear from Rick Perry about Mitt Romney’s record on jobs, and from Romney on Perry’s record on children’s health care.

At last night's GOP presidential debate, instead of offering a plan to improve the lives of middle-class Americans, the Republican candidates fought over which one of them has changed their position the most since their books came out. None of them managed to offered a single new idea.

Rick Perry can try to blame others for the state of health care in Texas, but middle-class Texans know the reality: Under Governor Perry’s policies, health insurance premiums have risen 105 percent, nearly 6.5 million Texans are uninsured, and the state has spent as little as possible on health care.

If there’s one thing debate watchers could count on, it’s a full-fledged attack on Social Security from the Republican candidates. These are the same candidates who have previously called for privatizing Social Security and even labeled it a “Ponzi scheme” – and we heard more of the same tonight.

Mitt Romney claims he’ll lower taxes for the middle class, but his plan will actually let special interests write their own rules, provide more tax cuts to large corporations and wealthy Americans, and cost $2.1 trillion.

Tonight’s debate confirmed that the Republican candidates are more interested in saying what the Tea Party wants to hear than in doing what the American people are demanding: -- more interested in arguing if Social Security is a "fraud" or a "Ponzi scheme" than in creating jobs.

From Rick Perry criticizing Mitt Romney's record on jobs to Jon Huntsman's charge that his fellow Republicans are running from science, the Republican candidates took the gloves off and attacked each other at last night's debate.

The Republican candidates attacked President Obama on border security, but his record is clear: unprecedented resources for securing our border and a smart and effective approach to enforcing immigration laws.

President Obama has been pursuing all forms of responsible domestic energy production -- including a record investment in clean technology and the approval of the first new nuclear plant in 30 years. The Republican candidates, however, would all protect special tax breaks for oil companies at the expense of middle class families.

Though the Republican candidates rail against health care reform now, their criticism ignores the reality of their records. Two candidates implemented similar health reforms in their states and another’s has the highest rate of uninsured people in the nation.

While Mitt Romney might like to claim that he’s the Republican candidate with the economic experience needed to be president, his record – from ranking 47th in job creation to raising taxes on individuals and businesses – tells a very different story.

While Perry might like to talk about the "Texas miracle," the reality is it’s just another Texas Tall Tale – just remember that growth has been driven by factors he didn’t control, like rising oil prices and increased military spending.

As governor, Mitt Romney bragged to the S&P that he had cut spending and raised taxes in Massachusetts. But at tonight’s debate, he flip flopped on the balanced approach he once took, even rejecting a compromise proposal of 10 spending cuts to every one revenue increase.

In tonight’s debate, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann reiterated that they opposed the compromise debt agreement. They in fact are following the extreme wing of their party that would have allowed our nation to default for the first time in history, which would have had disastrous effects for our economy.